Monday, September 24, 2007

*****DISCLAIMER! THIS MAY BE A VERY LONG POST, BUT IT IS NECESSARY TO POINT OUT HOW THE UPCOMING PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN CAN AND WILL BE WON BY THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IN 2008*****Now with that out of the way, I think I have been an activist in the political game about 25 years all told from college until now. Admittedly, I have not always been as active as now, and eight years of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton can do that to any sane person. If there is one thing that I have figured out is the trench warfare that many a presidential election is fought.So, a little modern political history.For some reason, the American people were led to believe that we had never had such an election until the 2000 Bush-Gore saga. But we have. And, for the most part, those kind of elections took place in the 19th century. We had some very close ones in my 43 years on God's earth. Take 1968. Republican Richard Nixon barely beat Democrat Hubert Humphrey. Mr. Nixon did not get a majority of the popular vote, but got the majority of the electoral college. Same goes for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford. And that was right after Watergate and with then President Ford starting at least 20 points behind Mr. Carter. And, how can we forget, but the election of 1992 was actually very close and William Jefferson Blythe Clinton only got 42 percent of the popular vote. In 1996, Mr. Clinton still could not break the 50 percent ceiling. Mr. Clinton got 49 percent against a weak Republican Bob Dole and an even weaker gadfly Ross Perot.So, we have had a lot of close elections in the last forty years. Not every election can be a Ronald Reagan blowout.Now that the history is done, here are the nuts and bolts.Each party, Democrat and Republican starts any presidential campaign with roughly 30 percent of the voters of each party. These are the die hard, activist, vote for any candidate with a D or R after their name. Heck, one could be Kim jong-Il and if there is a D or an R, well you get the picture. That takes about 60 percent of the electorate out of the picture. They are in like flint.Then, there are the 10 percenters. These are people who are registered either Democrat or Republican, but not necessarily loyal. These are the voters that a candidate needs to make feel like they are part of the party, either D or R. These people need a little more convincing. They need to be convinced that the candidate will address their pet issue or issues. Usually, they come along about a month after the political conventions. Another 20 percent of the electorate no longer up for grabs. That is a total of 80 percent of voters already spoken for. So, what about the magical 20 percent?The 20 percent is what each campaign is going for. Usually these are the people that make up their minds at the last minute. These voters are not tied to any party. Amazingly, these voters are what I would refer to as instinctively conservative, but swayable. It is these voters that returned the Democrats back in control of congress in the 2006 midterm elections.How do Republicans go after this 20 percent when things do not look so good?Well, for one thing Republicans have got to clean house. Here is an example. In California, near the state capital, Sacramento, there is Republican congressman John Doolittle. Any day now, Mr. Doolittle may be indicted on corruption charges. If the Republican party was smart, they would strongly encourage Mr. Doolittle to stand down for reelection. It is time for Mr. Doolittle to term himself out of office. Same goes for Alaska senator Ted Stevens. If they continue to think it is all about them, then the Republican National Committee has to tell them, they can run, just do not expect the RNC to send cash their way. This would show the so-called swing voter that the Republicans do mean business that they would get dead weight out and the base excited. Corruption is a large issue for swing and loyal Republican voters.Another fact is that there are certain issues that Republican voters like to hear and should be limited to the primary campaign season. Yes, the Democrat machine, essentially the DDBMSM, will bring those issues up. Well, that simply means the Republicans need to go on offense. And yes, it can be done.The Republican candidate will be strong on the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, but may want to take a different approach. Maybe try to get European allies more involved. Maybe not using overt military actions, such as the war in the Iraq theatre. Also, the Republican candidate needs to really tie Iraq with the overall War Against Islamofacsist Terror. As President Bush has made some mistakes, it is a golden opportunity for the Republican candidate to say what he would do differently, but adhere to the fact that there is a serious war against fanatical Islam.And what would make people excited than an issue that always serves Republicans well, taxes?The candidate can not run on defense. He needs to come up with a comprehensive reform. Talk about the flat tax, the VAT, or fair tax. These are issues that resonate with voters, especially the 20 percenters.And some honesty will help. The Republican candidate has to bluntly tell the American people that there is no quick fix to health care reform. The Republican has to promote choice and that one size does not fit all. The candidate will have to encourage state reforms. The Democrats are already for the socialized medical card, and the Republicans can not let them seize the issue. It could make or break a Republican candidacy.It will be a good offense that overtakes a potential Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) candidacy. Sen. Clinton needs to be on the defensive and be prone to make fatal errors that will cripple her candidacy. Yes, I know, the Washington DDBMSM crowd all but swooned over Sen. Clinton's performance this past Sunday on the five Sunday gas bag shows like Meet The Press, Face The Nation, This Week With George Stephanopolus, Fox News Sunday, Last Edition. But when you are getting softballs when the media needs to throw high, hard ones, someone like Sen. Clinton makes it look easy. So, will that help the Republicans? Absolutely. I think that the right candidate, say Mitt Romney will be able to deliver on an offense agenda. Remember, Mr. Romney was the most conservative Republican governor of Massachusetts since Calvin Coolidge. And yes, I know he was not as conservative as some, but I believe that he has growing and that is what we want, isn't it? I mean, do we not go through all of this to convince people a certain candidate and way he or she would govern is what is the correct course for the country? I know so.As it was for George H. W. Bush in 1988, the Democrat presidential nominee will be up possibly 20 points. But, run an aggressive, offense-minded campaign and look what happens? And, remember former president Ronald Reagan was crippled during most of 1986 and a lot of 1987 due to the Iran-Contra affair. Granted, Mr. Reagan's numbers were not as lousy as President George W. Bush, but there is room for improvement and that can only help the Republican candidate.I am not a gloom and doomer. If I were, then I would say let us coronate the Democrat candidate as president. There is a much better than a 50/50 chance for the Republicans to keep the White House and maybe take back one or both houses of congress. Again, the Republicans can win one or both houses if they get some kick-ass candidates in the mix. And, if that does not happen, at least keeping the Democrats from increasing their majorities maybe all that can be done this election cycle.I think that if the Republican candidate endorses an aggressive agenda and campaign, I firmly believe that it will lead to victory in 2008. No more of this there is not a real conservative in the race. There are several and we need to keep encouraging them to stay in that direction. It is what this is all about. Getting more voters acquainted with and keeping them as Republicans.

Saturday, September 22, 2007

According to David Fredosso of National Review http://corner.nationalreview.com, Fred Thompson spoke to a large Republican gathering at the world famous Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island in Michigan tonight.Mr. Fredosso was not impressed.And, that is not the first time that people have said that Mr. Thompson has not impressed them in a speech.Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com was at a large Republican meeting in Orange County, California earlier this year before Mr. Thompson made his candidacy official. He was not impressed nor were many in the red-meat Republican group.Which leads to the question.Did Fred Thompson wait too long to get in the Republican race for the presidency?At this point I would say, maybe.I think that it is troubling that an experienced actor as is Mr. Thompson is having trouble rallying the troops. Is it because it does not have the fire in the belly?I know that all reports indicate that Mr. Thompson is far off the mark in raising necessary funds to make a serious run at the presidency. That can not be good when you have to take some funding away from Rudy Giuilani and Mitt Romney.The case for the Thompson candidacy has been that he is the next Ronald Reagan.But, I just do not feel it. I do not feel any of the Republican candidates are the next Ronald Reagan. They have the ability to make good on some aspects of Mr. Reagan's agenda, but again I will write it. There will NOT be another Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan was a one of a kind and a man of his time.Thus, we conservatives need to stop saying we are looking for the next Reagan. It ain't gonna happen with this bunch of candidates.So, what would Mr. Thompson do differently than the other top three, Giuiliani, McCain or Romney?So far, I do not see much difference in any of the four.So, I think that the major problem for Mr. Thompson is that he got into the race too late and is probably peaking about now.And that is too bad because we Republicans need to have a strong race and I am afraid that Mr. Thompson may not be one to get this race going.

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has a new television commercial in which he says, bluntly, that Republicans can not act like Democrats and that when Republicans do, America loses.AMEN, BROTHER!!The ad is on the Romney for President web site http://mittromney.com, and it is going to be running in the first caucus state of Iowa and the first primary state of New Hampshire.It is important because Mr. Romney does two very important things.First, Mr. Romney is making the case that the Republican party is moving in the disastrous direction of becoming Democrat lite. Remember, given the choice between genuine Democrat and a pseudo-Democrat lite, the voters will almost always choose the Democrat. Why vote for a little when you can have the real thing? Also, remember how wonderful and successful the Republican party was in the 1960's?Second, Mr. Romney also makes the case that the Republican party has to move back to first principles. It is what gave the Republican party the control on congress in 1994, having a firm set of principles and running and for a time governing in that way. Mr. Romney also makes the case that it will take someone outside of Washington to clean up the Republican party and government in general.That is what is attractive about Mr. Romney and to many Republicans, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. They are both Washington outsiders.And, in another post, I will wonder why the buzz over former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, who like is friend Sen. John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz) a member of the Washington Club.But, it is Mr. Romney who has taken on the bad Republicans in Washington and yes, even President Bush, who has made some stumbles in the second term that former presidents Ronald Reagan and William Jefferson Blythe Clinton also made.When the other so-called top tier Republican candidates take on the corruption in Washington, they can be taken as serious Republicans. Until then, Mitt Romney is the gutsiest of the field at this point.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Today, the senate voted in large numbers to condemn the traitorousMoveOn.org advertisement in the New York Times libeling Gen David Petreaus. But, where did Sen. Hilary Clinton, Sen. BarackObama, Sen. Dick Durbin, Grand Wizard, er Sen. Robert Byrd, stand on this vote? Well, these sycophants, except Sen. Obama, voted against the Sense of the Senate resolution by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).The SOTS passed 72-25 with three abstentions. Again, one of the three abstentions was Sen. Obama. The other two were Sens. Joe Biden (D-Del) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA)Here is the list of the 25 ignorant buffoons who are so blinded by MoveOn.org that they can not bring themselves to vote against one of the most treacherous bits of propaganda in recent memory:Daniel Akaka-HIJeff Bingaman-NMBarbara Boxer-CA-no surprise!Sherrod Brown-OHGrand Wizard Robert Byrd-WVHilary Clinton-NYChristopher Dodd-CTDick Durbin-ILRuss Feingold-WITom Harkin-IADaniel Inouye-HIEdward Kennedy-MAJohn Kerry-MAFrank Lautenberg-NJCarl Levin-MIRobert Menendez-NJPatty Murray-WAJack Reed-RIJay Rockefeller-WVBernard Sanders-VTCharles Schumer-NYDebbie Stabenow-MISheldon Whitehouse-RIRon Wyden-OROh, and just in case you were wondering, no Republican voted against the SOTS.What a rouges gallery of sycophants!It is most troublesome that these buffoons can not stand up to an ally and say they went over the line. And, these people want to make the American people believe that they will stand up to the al-Queda terrorists? To Osama bin Laden? To North Korean president Kim jongIl? To Iranian president Mahmoud Ahamdinejad?It is unbelievable that these buffoons can not distinguish between a group that seeks to undermine the last chance to bring about a victory in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror and that the American people may have misgivings about the war in Iraq but know the difference between characterassassination and potential victory.But, one can not expect anything less from these fools.Time to call and e-mail these senators http://capwiz.com and tell them that you are outraged by their vote on the SOTS and while you are at it, tell them to vote against the "Dream act".Maybe, they will get the message.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

I have to say, I can not wait to buy and read Laura Ingraham'shttp://lauraingraham.com latest tome, "Power To The People."One thing that she said on her radio program today has stuck with me. She said that it appears that many Americans like to be dumb and numb. It was one of the most accurate comments I have heard in a long time.In defense of many Americans, there are thoughtful people and yes on both sides that are trying to push for better education for Americans and a better informed citizenry.But, let us face facts. I feel like I am in a time warp.Yesterday, Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) unveiled her Hilarycare II, trying to sugar-coat the socialization of medicine in the United States, and O. J. Simpson is in jail again. And, for good measure, there is still rumblings that Newt Gingrich is thinking about running for president.Is this 1995 or 2007?So, I have a pop quiz.How many know anything about the Israeli air raids into Syria? Or, how many know about the story of a group of Iranians and North Koreans in Syria who died in a chemical weapons accident? (HT: Jerusalem Post http://jpost.com)Not many, I am sure because the DDBMSM likes you to not know, thus not care. It is more important for some news outlets to show you what O. J. Simpson's jail toilet looks like http://FoxNews.com. It is more important to show an ignorant Sally Field railing at the Emmy Awards that if mothers ruled the world there would be no more war.An aside, I believe that former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher was a woman, and a mother, and led Britain to war with Argentina over Argentina's illegal invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1981. What does Miss Field have to say about that?It amazes me to converse with people and when I bring up what is going on in the world what little people know. And with all the options out there such as the Internet, television, radio and yes, even newspapers, it appears that most Americans are dumber and number.Does the United States need to have a major city nuked to wake up the majority of people? Does the United States need to continue to allow abortion on demand unabated because seven men in black robes mysteriously found a "right" in the constitution? How about banning school prayer? What about spending at all levels of government going unchecked? May I go on?That is what I try to address when I can. We need to do what Miss Ingraham is saying in her book. We need to take back this nation from the abyss.In the post previous to this, I implore on people to call their senators and congressmen to tell them NOT to pass the "Dream Act" which, among other things, gives illegal alien college students in-state tuition. It is amnesty through the back door. The American people were able to change the senate's mind once, now it is time to do it again.When it comes to public education, we all need to get involved, whether we have children in the public schools or not. It is there that minds are being molded and mostly by left-wingers. If we are to take back something, it will have to start at public education.What Miss Ingraham is saying is what I will say. Educate yourselves. Be on top of issues. Do not fall into the trap of being dumb and numb.

Apparently, the United States senate does not like to take the public "no" for an answer. Crafty devils they are. Instead of the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam they tried to shove down the American people's throats, they are trying the "drip, drip, drip" method of sneaking it in piece by piece.The new attempt is the so-called "Dream Act" which would allow college-age illegal alien students to get in-state tuition and access to student aid that many American students need to go to even a state university. Call it the "Nightmare Act" is more like it!It is nothing more than a weird way to reward parents for coming here illegally in the first place and their children. Now, to be fair, many children did not have much choice in the matter, but when they know at a certain age, if their parents tell them, that they are not American citizens, they should not be able to access higher education at the front of the line over American students or those that are from other nations that are playing by the rules.So, since the Republicans stopped it when Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) was trying to get this Nightmare Act when the Republicans controlled the senate, now Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) is trying to get it through a nominally Democrat controlled senate.Here is a clue. If Republicans think that they can pull the wool over our eyes and let this abysmal piece of legislation pass, then they will be in for a rude awakening.So, it is time to contact your senators, for now, and tell them to vote no if this Nightmare Act does come for a vote this week.Go to Capital Contacts http://www.capwiz.com/ for the phone number to your senator in the Washington, D. C. office and in your home state. Also, e-mail them as well. If they get another great flood of phone calls and e-mails, as in the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam, they will get the message and vote no.This continuing message from some members of congress that breaking the law in the first place gets rewarded need to be stopped and stopped now.If we can do that here, then maybe the senate and or the house will stop bringing the Federal Rewards Programs For Illegal Aliens up for vote after vote.Time to stop the backdoor amnesty and for us to get back to work reminding the senate who they work for.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

In today's Providence Journal http://www.projo.com, former United States senator, Lincoln Chafee, said that he has left the Republican party and is now an unaffiliated voter.The Rhode Islander was somehow going to win reelection in 2006 and keep the senate in GOP hands.Or, so that is what the GOP thought. The National Republican Senate Committee spent a lot of money fending off a serious primary challenge from Cranston mayor Steven Laffey and in the general election and Mr. Chafee still lost.I think that the voters of Rhode Island could not really tell the difference between Mr. Chafee and the Democrat challenger, now senator, Sheldon Whitehouse. Hence, rightviewfromtheleftcoast rule number one: when faced between a "moderate" Republican and an unapologetic liberal Democrat, the voters will elect the real deal, the Democrat.So, I ask again in looking back and hearing the warnings from conservative activists, was the money that the NRSC spent to try to defend a seat that would have probably become independent, leaning Democrat, worth it?It was not. And Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) needs to remember this as we head into the 2008 election in earnest.Firstly, let the state party decide the nominee. The NRSC blatantly interfered with the process by giving Mr. Chafee a ton of money to fend off Mr. Laffey's challenge. No more of that.Second. See if the candidate has a realistic chance to win. The only way to really win is to concentrate on state races that the GOP has a chance to win. Too much money was wasted in Rhode Island on a race that was doomed from the start.Third, start rebuilding state parties. If the GOP lets New England stay in Democrat hands, they will have no one to blame but themselves. The RNC needs to put some professionals in each state's party and find ways to run candidates in every race in that state. Even if it will be a blowout on election day, it keeps the Republicans in the news and makes the Democrats have to spend money where they should not have to. Also, it will be the only way to rebuild the Republican brand in this part of the United States.Wasting money needs to stop for the NRSC. Getting great candidates is and has to be the first priority if there is any chance, and I am an optimist, to regain the senate. It is true, all it will take is two seats to reclaim and maybe even one if the Republicans win the White House.So, I for one am glad that Mr. Chafee has left the Republican party. For one can be an iconoclast and not always vote the party line, but Mr. Chafee was doing it with so much impunity that he might as well have become independent before the 2006 election. It would have saved the NRSC a lot of money and may have made the difference in a couple of close races.

On the Nanny State front, a Los Angeles city councilwoman, Jan Perry, has a very ingenious idea to stem the "tide" of obesity in the city council district that she represents.Miss Perry would like a two-year moratorium on the building of fast food restaurants.WHAT?!?!?It has to prove two things.That the Los Angeles city council does not have anything better to do. While the city can not fix potholes, they will consider this absurd legislation.Secondly, the reason that there is a proliferation of fast food establishments in South Central Los Angeles is the fact that it is a social and economic basketcase and until the former situation is solved, the latter will not transform.But, Miss Perry obviously does not understand both the problem in her district and the free enterprise system.Gang activity, which leads to crime, broken families, which leads to multiple children and many times from multiple fathers, and lack of innitive is the greatest problem in the district Miss Perry represents. But, true socialist that she is, she does not want to address the real problems but blames the outside forces that makes these people do what they do.Really? So, these people do not have minds of their own and know how to make the right decisions over the wrong decisions? I do not think so, but if one makes people feel like victims rather than part of the problem, what you get is an unending cycle.So, if the police were able to go all out to break the power of gang life, many young people will have potential opportunity to better their lives and thus the lives of their neighbors. These people are tired of the empty promises to improve their neighborhoods.It is time for the police to be able to break heads and let the gangs and gangbangers know who runs the neighborhood.Also, their is a spiritual bankruptcy, which leads to the problems of gangs and cheap sex that leads to out of wedlock children which cause a drain on the economy in general as the state has to dole out welfare benefits to these people. There is a serious need for spiritual renewal. This is a great vineyard for Christians to speak the gospel and bring people to Christ. Also, there is room for many faith traditions to help those who want to break the cycle of economic and spiritual poverty gripping this area of Los Angeles.It would amaze Miss Perry that if that were done, then many businesses would want to flock to this area to build it up, to provide jobs and a way for many to move up the ladder and become great role models for their neighbors. But, why would say a major supermarket chain want to go into such an area? The risks far outweigh the possible benefits.The reality is that people want to sweep the real problems under the rug and blame someone else and feel good about it.So, then the Food Police will be active in trying to stop another McDonalds from being built in an area where it is popular. And the Nanny State continues to astound those of us that believe this is the last place where government should be involved.Methinks that until the larger problems are solved in this area of Los Angeles, it will not matter if one or a thousand fast food restaurants are built. There needs to be a rethinking of the proper role of government. All I can say is that this is not the proper role of government.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

In today's coarsened "culture", there are few things off limits.Oh, one can not say anything negative about "victim" groups, you know, ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians, Islamics, and the rest of what now makes up the Democrat base.But God and Jesus, oh to those who think all of us who profess that Jesus Christ is Lord and that with the Father and the Holy Ghost he influences many Americans in their everyday lives, that is not off limits. It is considered cool.Along comes "comedienne" Kathy Griffin. She has a "reality" show in which she mocks the fact that she is not even a "B" list celebrity. Her show, "My Life On The D List" celebrates mediocrity.So, when a mediocre "comedienne" says something so outrageous, it should not get any notice.But, this time, Miss Griffin decided to take on the Lord of Lords, King of Kings, the big cheese, Jesus Christ.In the background and creative Emmy Awards show that will be broadcast this Saturday night, in a clearly unbelievable act, Miss Griffin actually wins an Emmy. In an act of ingratitude, Miss Griffin says:A lot of people come up here to thank Jesus for winning this award. I want to let you know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus.Beautiful! But, Miss Griffin felt that she did not go far enough in this diatribe. Miss Griffin went on to proclaim:Suck it, Jesus! This award is my God! Outstanding!On a slew of different levels, this is absolutely revolting. This goes beyond the pornification of the "culture" that Laura Ingrahamhttp://lauraingraham.com talks about in her latest book, "Power To The People".If it were not for William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, these remarks would have probably aired on the on the disgusting E! Channel this Saturday night.Talk about a Power To The People moment!I can not help but wonder, would Miss Griffin even thought to slam Mohammed in the same way, saying "Suck it Mohammed! This award is my Allah!" Of course not!For whatever reason, people who profess the Christian faith, no matter what, are mocked in this way. At one time in the United States, this mocking would have been roundly condemned and the person saying it would have been, rightfully, out of a job.Now, it is cool to slam Christians. It is cool to put Jesus in a jar of urine and call it "Piss Christ" and pass it off as art. Or, in Australia, where there has been an art show where the traditional image of Jesus morphs into, I kid you not, Osama bin Laden http://americasnewspaper.com.Every slam in this fashion seems to be protected according to those who like this sort of thing by the United States constitution. It may be true in a literal sense. But, why do people go out of their way to offend a huge segment of the American populace and in fact make them feel marginalized? Does it make them feel cool? Do they realize, not everyone who is a professing Christian practices their faith a same way?No, these people do not usually know Christians. They are the ones that think "fly over country" are a bunch of illiterate hayseeds who have no brains and must hold onto the Christian thing as a crutch. Remember, the award is Miss Griffin's God. How sad and pathetic.I would ask you to read the piece by Fox News Channel's religion correspondent, Lauren Green http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296683,00.html. It is a reasoned answer as to why Miss Griffin's comments were so offensive.What those who do these kinds of actions, whether it is outright repugnant comments about Jesus, or trying to block nativity scenes at Christmas time or replacing the Resurrection story of Jesus with the spring bunny at Easter, they make all Christians, traditional and modern, stand up and say no more. Stop this now!The sad part for Miss Griffin is that I have watched her and she can be funny, but there is a fine line between being funny and outrageous and being downright offensive. Like Michael Richards use of the N word during a performance, this marginalizes and comedienne who can be funny.I think Miss Griffin should be punished by spending a week with the practicing Christian family of her choice and see that most of us are not all that bad.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

I have waited to comment on the traitorous advertisement that MoveOn.org had published in the New York Times, in the A section at a discount no less, defaming the United States commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus and questioning the validity of the report to congress.I have waited because I actually thought, silly me, that the leading Democrat presidential candidates would have distanced and or condemned the advertisement.But, alas, no one would. Oh, of course the pseudo Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) did condemn it. Not Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY). Not Sen. BarackObama (D-Ill). Not former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC). Not a one.So, what was so bad about this advertisement?Besides the caption, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" Oh, real cute. The advertisement went on to not just imply but downright say that Gen. Petraeus was cooking up the report in a favorable light to the Bush administration.Now, why would a decorated, injured twice, general of Gen. Petraeus stature lie about the progress, militarily, in Iraq? Gen. Petraeus has nothing to gain by "cooking" the report.What is nauseating about this tactic by MoveOn.org is that by making Gen. Petraeus their scapegoat, they lead the way in attacking the very troops that are in Iraq now fighting the insurgents and al-Queda In Iraq.Yes, our friends on the left say that they have nothing against the troops. Why, they even support the troops, so they say. But, if Gen. Petraeus is lying, then what the troops are doing in the fight is nothing but a big lie.So, why do the Democrats let this libel stand? Because MoveOn.org is doing two things. The Democrat bidding in discrediting Gen. Petraeus and United States Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. According to news reports, an unidentified Democrat senator said that they will leave it to the outside groups like MoveOn.org to do their dirty work. So brave of the senator, not even to identify him or herself. So brave to not do the dirty work his or herself. What a slime!Today's New York Post http://nypost.com/seven/09122007/postopinion/smearing has an excellent editorial slamming MoveOn.org for taking this tack, the New York Times for publishing and essentially agreeing with the content of the advertisement and the Democrat presidential candidates for not condemning this libel.The second thing that MoveOn.org is doing is ginning up their members and in turn the Democrat base by renewing the anti-war creed of the Democrat party. MoveOn.org gets more cash and that goes, indirectly, to Democrat candidates.Since the Democrat party is showing it self to be the cowards that they are, I predict that this will backfire and that the sober, no sugar-coated report of Gen. Petraeus and Mr. Crocker will gain support for the surge and repulse the centrist voter that the Democrats believe they have in their hip pocket.If the Democrats are a serious party and want to be a centrist party, the first thing that the leadership and presidential candidates must do is distance themselves from this fifth-columnist group, MoveOn.org, and stand up and say that they will give the surge a full chance and if their is no tangible results by spring, then pursue legislation that will end the war in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror and try to get some Republican support.Being cowards as the Democrats are is unbecoming of a party of the stature that they have been-until now. To start, responsible Democrats need to tell MoveOn.org to move on out.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Well, I am trying to figure out if the polling mechanism on e-blogger is working.If it is, take part in my straw poll on the right, of course, of who will be the Republican presidential nominee.If it is not working, please vote here by using the comments.You have until Friday at 9pm, Pacific Time.At that time, I will tabulate the votes and post them within the hour.Please take part!

Today is Patriot Day.Not many Americans know it.It is because of an act of congress right after the vicious terrorist attacks on the United States on this day six years ago. It is to remember the events of that horrible day in which 19 terrorists showed how they could change a nation in a matter of hours and awaken a sleeping giant.And, the sad part is how soon people WANT to forget the fateful day six years ago.New York City "independent" mayor, Michael Bloomberg was trying to prevent the ceremony from taking place at the former World Trade Center site that has taken place the previous five years. Mr. Bloomberg cited the construction going on there. But, thankfully, many of those who wanted to have the ceremony took over the mayor's head and it has already occurred, as it should.Too many people are now using the old moral equivalence that permeated during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. If you forget, the left tried to downplay any of the evil of the Soviet's by trying to equalize what the United States was doing. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan put a stop to that and defeated the Soviet Union on the basis that the United States was something special and history has proven that correct.Now, we are not even bothering to teach our young people what happened and if there is anything, it is in "context", so what that means is that somehow the United States will be made to be the bad guy and those in al-Queda and their allies are the good guys.Then, what is the point of Patriot Day?It will be up to people like us to remind the American people what happened on that fateful September morn six years ago. It is up to us to tell the story as to why we are fighting those who will stop at nothing to destroy our way of life and liberty and replace it with a repugnant form of Islam that is demeaning and degrading.Today is Patriot Day. Please remind those who want to forget we can not forget and make victory in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror.

Today is the day that radio talker Laura Ingrahamhttp://lauraingraham.com new book, "Power To The People" is out for public sale.I usually am not a huckster for books, but Laura is one of the best conservative lights in public view and by buying her book, we are supporting her and what she talks about.It is her kind of inspiration that leads people like myself to take the time to do this blog.So, go out and buy her book and make sure that it gets into the New York Times top 10 ASAP!

Monday, September 10, 2007

Jane Wyman, a great actress and the former Mrs. Ronald Reagan died today at 93.Miss Wyman was a classy lady who did not dish any dirt on her former husband when he was elected to be governor of California or president of the United States. When Mr. Reagan died in 2004, Miss Wyman said that "America lost a great president and a kind and gentle man."In a strange twist, Miss Wyman's career had a revival when Mr. Reagan was elected to the White House in 1980.Miss Wyman became the star of the 1980's night time soap opera, "Falcon Crest" as a cunning, ruthless wine owner in the Napa Valley of California.But, because she believed that it was not right to talk about an ex-husband or ex-wife, we do not and will not know if there was anything bad between Miss Wyman and Mr. Reagan. And, that is how it should be.It is a shame that in today's celebrity culture that is beyond narcissistic, these toads could learn something from the generation of Miss Wyman and Mr. Reagan and some of the great actors and actresses of all time.CLASS!Today, not too many entertainers do have class. They would rather talk about their pathetic, loser lives and diss others just to make themselves look good.People of that era just did not think it was right and proper and I for one would like to return to that time.But, as those from that era continue to leave us for the Glory of God, so too will the decency and class that was with them.And, that was Jane Wyman, a class act.

Today before a hostile joint Democrat-controlled House International and Defense committee, commander of coalition forces in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and United States Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, laid it all out there for the world to see.In a nutshell, both admitted that while there was tangible progress both militarily and politically, it was not enough and more time would be needed. No punches where pulled. Nothing grandiose. Just the facts. In other words, to use baseball lingo, they hit a 1-2 homer out of the park.On the other hand, the left-wings loons, led by the fifth-columnistMoveOn.org that ran a traitorousadvertisement in the New York Times with this catchy tag line "General Petraeus or General Betray Us" Get it?! So funny, I forgot to laugh.If that was not enough, lunatic leftists Code Pink interrupted the hearing several times shouting and screaming. Some of the screaming was blood curdling, as if they were being beheaded by one of the al-Queda enemies that we are fighting not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but worldwide. Among them, the Queen Loon herself, Cindy Sheehan. And just when you thought she would just be campaigning for Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi's seat. Can you imagine some campaign propaganda from the Sheehan campaign with that photo?!And, of course you had a couple of fringe Democrat inquisitors, Congressman Robert Wexler (D-Florida) and Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif)-and I am embarrassed she is from here!trying to slap down Gen. Petreaus. The good general would have none of it and when it became clear that Laurel and Hardy were just trying to score political points, Ambassador Crocker answered their moronic questions.Some of the highlights http://FoxNews.com are:By the sectarian factions dropping their association with al-Queda in Iraq violence has greatly decreased. General PetraeusGen. Petraeus blamed the al-Queda in Iraq bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque in February 2006 for the huge spike in violence. Gen. Petraeus noted that this has been the quietest two weeks since February, 2006. According to Gen. Petraeus, one marine unit will be sent home at the end of this month and an army brigade will be sent home in mid-December. Gen. Petraeus said that the troop levels should be at pre-surge levels by July, 2008.Of course, the Democrats could not see the forest through the trees and beat Gen. Petraeus up on something that President Bush said last week in reference to the United States pullout from South Vietnam that led to the South being conquered by the Communist North.Here is the reality.It is not just about breaking the pottery and having to fix it as Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said during last week's Republican presidential debate. It is not just honor, also as Mr. Huckabee said. It is about the fact that the United States and allies can not leave Iraq and just hope that everything works out. For it will not. Sooner or later, the United States would be right back in the thick of battle, only it would be worse because the Islamofacsists, al-Queda in Iraq and other allies will be loaded for bear and much more deadly than they are now.With some, but not enough, political gains and more to come and the military goals within reach, it is time to unite for victory. It is not time for the loons on the left to dictate the terms of surrender, which a time-table troop withdrawal would be.I will write here and now that I am as weary of this battle in this theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, but we have made real military and political progress and we need to see it through so that Iraq will be a reliable ally in the War Against IslamofacsistTerrror. The same for Afghanistan.President Bush on more occasions than one can remember said that this would be a long struggle and it is apparent that a large segment of the American population can not deal with such a long term struggle. We all want it to be like a two hour movie and it to be over and the good guys, the United States and the West, beating the bad guys, al-Queda in Iraq and their bloodthirsty allies.General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker gave a sober assessment of the situation in the Iraq theatre. Because of that, I do believe that for the first time in a long time, the American people are ready to back the current course and that may be a quicker than thought victory in the war.The United States is lucky to have such leaders. Because they were honest, and the Democrats and their allies looked foolish, the light maybe at the end of the Iraq tunnel.

Saturday, September 08, 2007

Nebraska Republican senator Chuck Hagel is calling it quits http://owh.com. Sen. Hagel is not running for reelection or for the presidency. All I can say is HOORAY!Sen. Hagel has been a thorn in the side of the Republican party for a long time now. Not unlike Sen. John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz), Sen. Hagel has thought that he is a party of one. If one does not listen to the pontifications of the Sage From The Heartland then one is a knuckle dragging Neanderthal.Sen. Hagel is one of those Republicans that just does not learn. Sen. Hagel loves to reach out to the Democrats, again not unlike Sen. "F--- You" McCain.Here is the first lesson for a Republican that "reaches out" to the Democrats. Make sure to watch your back and that YOU have all the cards in the deck in your favor.People like Sen. Hagel and his erstwhile ally Sen. "F--- You" McCain always go out of their way to Democrats. Take the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. People like Sens. Hagel and McCain let the Democrats pretty much write the bill.It is one thing to reach out to the other side, but to let them use you to embarrass your party is not a good thing.Oh, sure, Sen. Hagel loved to get the face time on the Sunday morning talking head shows. And., Sen. Hagel loved to get tomes published in the New York Times. Of course his appearances on television and tomes in the den of the enemy were almost always critical of the party he claimed to represent, the Republican party.As Nebraska is one of the Reddest states in the United States, there should be no problem for the Republicans to keep this seat. And, elect an actual Republican, not a publicity-seeking sycophant.Let us hope that Sen. Chuck Hagel simply slithers off into the sunset and now we Republicans can elect one that remembers that he, or she, is a Republican.

Friday, September 07, 2007

Today, the world has been treated to the latest ramblings from the most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden. It is nice that there has been an instant translation of what the terrorist beast had to say, particularly to us Americans. After reading the transcript http://FoxNews.com, I have one question?Is Osama bin Laden a Democrat strategist? Or is he the real bankroller of MoveOn.org?I mean, he has taken to almost any given Democrat talking point, even mentioning global "warming". Unbelievable!bin Laden uses the term "neoconservative" like many Democrats, and Congressman Ron Paul, as if it is a profanity. That is in reference to Vice-President Cheney, former defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and to that anti-"neoconservative" eeeviiillll one himself, former undersecretary of defense, Richard Perle. Why, bin Laden even accuses Mr. Rumsfeld of being behind the Vietnam war and the killing of 2,000,000 villagers.Actually, we know that bin Laden would feel right at home with the anti-globalization crowd. bin Laden talks about the capitalist system making the world a "fiefdom" of the major corporations.It is good to know that we, as a people but not all Americans, so believe in God, er Allah, that we put "In God We Trust" on our money.Why, bin Laden also knows how fragile our soldiers are in the battlefield that is Iraq. bin Laden refers to a soldier named Joshua who has apparently spoken to the media about the conditions in Iraq-of course not in positive terms. If we are to believe the rantings of bin Laden, soldiers are either being blown up by mines all over the place, or killing themselves. It is any wonder there is any soldier left to do the fighting!While he is not emphasizing the Democrat talking points, and this is the troubling part, bin Laden is making one of those pleas for us "heathens" to convert to Islam. Why, bin Laden is clever to point out that Mary and Jesus Christ are mentioned in the Koran. Of course, in the Koran, Jesus Christ is not the savior, but Mohammad.It is really fascinating that this is coming now. And, the reason that the previous paragraph is important is the call to covert to Islam is exactly what Mohammad did just before attacking those that were not already Mohammedans. And that maybe that is what maybe the "high sign" to fellow terrorists to launch an attack. And, it is only days before the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.I do jest, somewhat, about bin Laden using Democrat talking points, but the real seriousness is towards the end of the screed. The plea for us "heathens" to leave our faith, I being a Christian, and convert to Islam. That is never a good sign.I do not really think the bin Laden is behind the MoveOn.org crowd, but it is amazing that bin Laden has all this access to information in a cave in either Afghanistan or Pakistan. It does make one wonder.

Thursday, September 06, 2007

It appears that the world's most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden, has crawled out of one the caves along the Afghani-Pakistani tribal border region because he is promising to deliver a message to the American people to coincide with the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.I CAN HARDLY WAIT!!!!According to the SITE group website http://siteinstitute.org/, a known terrorist website has a notice and a photo of the cretin, bin Laden, and the photo appears that he has cooked up his facial hair to make himself look younger. That is a frightening thought!So, what will the butcher of New York City and Washington D.C. have to say?"Nanny, nanny, nanny goat! You can't catch me!"Or maybe he will use this time to telegraph to his henchmen when to commit the next reign of terror.Nobody really knows. But, why on the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and not on the more symbolic fifth anniversary? Maybe that would be too obvious.All I know is that I do not want this mass murderer to overshadow the day that we, the people of the United States, can mourn and renew our resolve to catch and or, preferably, kill bin Laden and as many of his followers as we can.It will not end the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, but it would be one helluva victory. And maybe it can happen on 9/11/07.

I notice that Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com has a post today on the possibility of now Republican presidential candidate's Fred Thompson's cancer recurring.I for one do not think it is good to overemphasize that possibility. Look, anyone who has had any cancer has some chance that even with surgery of a recurrence of the cancer.It is possible that the cancer could reoccur if Mr. Thompson wins the nomination and the presidency. Former President Reagan had colon cancer as president. It did not return while he was finishing his second term.Unless Mr. Thompson and or the doctors are not being up front, and there is no reason to think anything different, one should not make it too much of an issue.I know that if Mr. Thompson is the nominee, the Democrat will make it an issue and they will do so at their own peril. And, I think we Republicans should let the Dems make the issue, not us.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Tonight was another Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire and there was a winner and a real loser and all the candidates looked better in some ways, weaker in others.Start with the loser. It was Fred Thompson. He really should not have been on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. He could have done that tomorrow night. Mr. Thompson should have been right at the center of the Republican universe with the other candidates to show what he has got. A no-show will not go well with many of the candidate partisans.The winner, and I hate to admit this and it is by default, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain. His talk about how to win in Iraq and the overall fight against the Islamofascists was very inspiring. However, what I just can not get away from Sen. "F--- You" McCain is that he makes me feel like he is a know-it-all and that he is smarter than you. That can be attributed to two things. Being in Washington way too long and that the overall attitude is what we expect from liberal, socialists, not a conservative. And the answers that he gave about the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam were totally a sham. You know, no matter how much one dresses up a pig, it is still a pig. And, that was the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill scam.The so-so had to be former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. I feel that he made inroads on domestic policy, but needed to be aggressive on the war in the Iraq theatre and less wanting to make alliances to defeat the Islamofacisists. But, I am always impressed by the fact Mr. Romney has his eyes on the overall picture. That we are fighting Jihaddists and they want to defeat us and we must defeat them first. Also, I think that he is somewhat hedging until we all hear the report by General David Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. The way that he talks about Iraq will be determined by that. Overall, Mitt is still my guy and will do better in the next debate.One that I have to admit I have looked at a second time is former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Now, I do not think that he has a chance at the nomination, but his sharp wit and knowledge of issues and willingness to go into areas Republicans rarely go is impressive. And when Mr. Huckabee and the Republican answer to the Democrat wackadoo tandem of Congressman Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska senator Mike Gravell, ol' Ron Paul were going toe to toe over how the war in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror I was impressed that Mr. Huckabee said that it is not just over winning elections that it is more important to follow our commitments and honor. Beautiful and accurate. And that is what separates most Republicans from most Democrats.Congressman Duncan Hunter continues to be working towards being the next Defense Secretary in either a Romney or Thompson administration.I still do not get the rationale for the candidacy of Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas). I think he needs to leave, but not like Sen. Larry Craig. I mean really leave.Same for Congressman Tom Tancredo. Once the conversation gets away from illegal immigration, Congressman Tancredojust seems way over his head. A good congressman, but won't be a great president.Then there is comic relief in Congressman Ron Paul. I mean, I like a lot of the positions that he takes, many unpopular, but he just does not get the epic battle of our time in the fight between civilization and the Islamofacsists. Just coming home will not end the war, only embolden those that see our weakness and will prey upon them. Like I wrote above, when a second-tier candidate like Mr. Huckabee can deliver the big smackdown over Iraq, I know this man is not presidential material.I did not forget about former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. But, I think he forgot to show up. He just seemed way off and was using his time as mayor of New York City as a crutch. If Mr. Giuliani wants to really be the Republican presidential nominee, he needs to show more fire and perform better than he did tonight. And when a questioner from the public asked about family values, Mr. Giuliani's answer was a big non-answer. And, like it or not, it will be the Achilles Heel of the Giuliani candidacy.The three-team Fox News Channel questioners, WendallGoler, Brit Hume, and Chris Wallace asked great questions. Even the people that Campaign Carl Cameron was getting to ask questions from the restaurant asked better ones than what will be asked at the moronic CNN/You Tube debate coming up.All in all, Sen. "F--- You" McCain came up a winner by default. Mr. Huckabee looked very impressive and Mr. Romney had a so-so night, but no bad answers and some not so good ones.Again, this field of Republican candidates is so vastly superior than any of the Democrat candidates. And with former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson entering the fray, it can only get better.

Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson made it semi-official tonight as he informally announced his Republican presidential campaign on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.I think that it is about time.The race needs a little bit of Hollywood, the right kind of Hollywood with a mix of being in Washington and yet not part of Washington. Enter, Mr. Thompson.Yea, Mr. Thompson will be compared to the man, former President Ronald Reagan, but Mr. Thompson will prove to be his own man.An aside, the DDBMSM is already comparing Mr. Thompson to Mr. Reagan. Mr. Thompson is being accused of being lazy. Now, where have we heard that before about another actor who ran for high office? Oh, yes, Mr. Reagan himself. While Mr. Reagan was wilying away eight years in office, he defiantly remade tax policy and brought the former Soviet Union to it knees and was able to see it fall during the Bush 41 years. Yes, only a lazy Ronald Reagan could have done it!Mr. Thompson, like all the other candidates, is not pure by any stretch of the imagination, but I think he will put the "We don't like any of the Republican candidates, can't there be more?" talk to rest. If Republican voters still do not like the choices, I guess we will have to dig Ronald Reagan out of the grave to satisfy those hold outs.Now, Mr. Thompson will have to articulate the reasons he wants to be president and lay out the ideas that break him away from the rest of the pack.So, I say it is about time and now the Republican race is shook up a bit and this diminishes the McCain candidacy even further.

Sad news as Matt Drudge is leaving the radio show that he hosts on Sunday nights http://newsmax.com. Mr. Drudge will be replaced by Cincinnati radio talker Bill Cunningham. He is a riot! If you have ever watched Mr. Cunningham on Hannity and Colmes, he literally tears Alan Colmes apart. Mr. Cunningham is a natural to replace Mr. Drudge. According to the Newsmax report, Mr. Drudge is going to concentrate more on the Drudge Report and other ventures. I for one will miss Mr. Drudge's humor and the way that he presents the stories on the Drudge Report. Also, Mr. Drudge called the Hurricane Katrina disaster before it slammed the Louisiana-Mississippi Gulf Coast.

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Here is California, there is a proposal that would end the current winner take all the electoral votes in the presidential electionAccording to the Pasadena Star-News http://pasadenastarnews.com, right now 49% of Californians favor the initive by Republican attorney and activist Thomas Hiltachk that would allocate the electoral votes based on the candidate that won one of the congressional districts rather than all votes going to whoever won the state as a whole.In the 2004 election, Democrat John Kerry won California with 54% of the votes. But, President Bush carried 22 congressional districts. Thus, while Sen. Kerry would have still won, President Bush would still get the 22 electoral votes, which would have put President Bush's electoral vote total over 300.Two other states, Maine and Nebraska, currently operate under this system. Because they are small states, there has not been a case in recent elections where that system made any kind of difference.This is a much better proposal than what has passed in Maryland that would allocate the state's electoral votes to the winner of the national presidential vote. In the last election, if one follows this logic, all of Maryland's electoral votes would have gone to President Bush, even though Sen. Kerry won the votes in Maryland by a roughly 2-1 margin. That sounds like disenfranchisement and the reason they are thinking about doing this in Maryland is to abolish the electoral college entirely.The California proposal does two things. First, it makes it meaningful for both presidential candidates, Democrat and Republican, to visit California on a more constant basis to shore up support. And, the electoral vote would just be broken down to reflect the popular vote of Californians. Everyone wins except those who want to eliminate the electoral college, which is mostly Democrats.The reason the electoral college was enshrined into the constitution was intentional to make sure that large states would not have more power than smaller states to determine who would be president. It has worked well for over 200 years and can be tinkered a little, but not eliminated.If this initiative makes the next California statewide ballot, it is a good compromise that is more important than where the state is on the party nomination process. It is worth looking at and as I see it should pass.

According to one of Sen. Larry Craig's top aides http://FoxNews.com, the Happy Footed senator may now be reconsidering the resignation statement from this past Saturday.We can thank good ol' Arlen Specter for this latest development.On Fox News Sunday this past week, Sen. Specter said that Sen. Craig should not have resigned and that he should, in fact, fight the plea deal he reached in Minnesota concerning the alleged trolling for sex in a toilet.I am publicly begging Sen. Craig. For the good of the Republican party, the very tattered reputation of the senate, the good of the nation and most importantly, the well being of your wife, Suzanne and children and grandchildren, just leave now, with what is left of your reputation intact and fight to clear your name as a private citizen.Now, I have thought about the fact that Sen. Happy Feet is telling the truth that he decided to plead guilty to the lesser charge to do two things. Put the matter behind him and to not satisfy the prurientcuriosity of the Idaho Statesman newspaper and the human excrement of a "blogger", Mike Rodgers. But, he should have fought right then and there and never given in, even to a lesser charge.Because of that, Sen. Happy Feet needs to leave office to clear his name. That will make the fact that he resigned after a very good senate career under duress less of a bad decision.But, I do not think that Sen. Happy Feet should listen to the erstwhile Sen. Specter and stay and fight. Maybe Sen. Specter has his heart in the right place, and for the record he was the only senator to somewhat show some support for Sen. Happy Feet. But, there are larger issues at stake.Sen. Craig alluded to the fact that the United States is at war and that these are serious times.That and trying to clear your name would take up way to much of your time as a senator means you must not take back your resignation statement of this past Saturday and go and clear yourself. Think of the bigger picture, not just yourself.

Currently, radio talker Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com, is torturing listeners by playing one of Sen. Hilary Clinton's speeches over the weekend in New Hampshire.I think that we should call the United Nations and see if there is a provision in the Geneva Convention on this kind of torture!The reason Mr. Hewitt is doing this is to wake conservatives up that this is what the at least four years of a Hilary Clinton presidency would be like.It is frightening!But, as an optimist, I believe that Sen. Clinton will turn off more voters than turn on. Really, she does not have the kind of rapport with people that the former President, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, had with the voting public.She is like the most annoying person one wants to hear. The nagging Mom, nagging wife, nagging sister. The list goes on.I know that some are already giving the 2008 election to Sen. Clinton, but I am not there at all.As I have been writing, the American people really want change. They know that will not happen with Sen. Clinton. I happen to think that Sen. BarackObama (D-Ill) will have a good shot even at winning the nomination. But, if Sen. Clinton should win, you read it here first, no VP spot for Sen. Obama. People need to get a clue. Sen. Clinton will not put up with anything that will overshadow her, and Sen. Obama will do it easily, just as Bill Clinton would do. One is enough, thank you.Yes, I know so many who are Republicans keep saying there is not a candidate that suits them. I do not believe it for one minute.Look, all you have in the Democrat side is Sens. Clinton and Obama. The rest are also rans.In the Republican field, there is Sen. John "F--- You" McCain, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and now former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson. Even the Republican also rans like former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and California congressman Duncan Hunter. Even our loon, Congressman Ron Paul is much more interesting than the two Democrat loons, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.Yea, yea, the DDBMSM will cover like crazy for Hilary, but she has the highest negatives of any candidate, even worse than lovable former President Richard M. Nixon!These things matter.If you can take the torture, listen to Hugh Hewitt, hear the voice of Sen. Clinton and send some cash to the Republican candidate for president of your choice. For a bad Republican is better than Sen. Clinton any day!

Sunday, September 02, 2007

As most of you know, I as a matter of principal am still a member of the Episcopal Church. It is a challenge for one that actually tries to really read the Holy Bible and use it as a guide. It is difficult to see the language change in the Book of Common Prayer that is absolutely pointless, but politically correct. But, knowing that one of the most corrupt politicians of the age, and no it is not a Clinton, is actually studying to become an Episcopal priest. That charlatan is none other than that "Gay American", former Democrat New Jersey governor, Jim McGreevey.When I first heard of this, I was struck with utter disbelief. I could not imagine that even as the Episcopal Church continues it downward spiral towards insignificance, would fast track someone as awful a human being as Mr. McGreevey. But, he has been fast-tracked and in three years time may come to be known as Father, or Pastor Jim. On so many levels, it is so wrong.Firstly, I do not know what diocese and church within that diocese is sponsoring Mr. McGreevey's time at the General Theological Seminary in New York City. I think that is very important. Since I am in the Diocese of Los Angeles, I know for a fact that one must go through intense counseling with a priest and even then go through what is called a discernment process that takes a year. Then, if one still feels called, they can go on to seminary. That is more like a four and a half to five year process.Secondly, do those in charge really think that a man of Mr. McGreevey's huge deficits is ready to become a priest/pastor? I mean, the real reason that Mr. McGreevey "came out" was because as governor of New Jersey, he was involved in multiple corruption scandals and the threat of being "outed". Well, Mr. McGreevey chose to out himself and resign as governor and also divorce his unsuspecting second wife. One would think that the General Theological Seminary would like to know that he has some of his life in order before answering the call of God to become a priest/pastor. I tend to think that Mr. McGreevey does not have all of his own stuff together.And, in the church's seemingly outreach to the gay and lesbian community, they will simply lower the bar and let ANYONE study for and eventually become a priest/pastor.At the end of the day, I do not believe that Mr. McGreevey has the temperament nor moral compass to be a priest/pastor. It is on the basis of holding him accountable for the pain that he went out of his way to cause others, including two wives and children.It is just absolutelyunbelievable that in this age, the Episcopal Church has so lowered itself that it would let someone like Jim McGreevey anywhere near a seminary.And the Episcopal Church wonders why it has troubles!

Saturday, September 01, 2007

Now that that Sen. Larry Craig saga is more or less behind us, what will the DDBMSM have to talk about before the report on progress in Iraq on or around September 15th?Here is a suggestion.How about how Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-New York) is already embroiled in another Democrat fundraising controversy? Sen. Clinton has not even become the Democrat nominee for president, which I still do not think she will get, and the tricks of the old man, former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton are rearing its ugly head.If you want a lot of info on this scandal of the Clinton campaign and Democrats etal, look for writings from John Fund at the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com - you may need a subscription.Funny, now who is the Party of Corruption?One would think that the Democrats could have at least waited to get the White House back before returning to their old tricks!

This morning, Sen. Larry Craig did the right thing and resigned from the senate effective September 30. We should all hope that this ends the overblown public side of this very unfortunate event and possible series of events.But, we who called for Sen. Craig to resign should not, and I mean not, be celebrating or happy in the least.In many ways, this saga of Sen. Craig allegedly soliciting sex with another man at an airport men's room has made a lot of people talk on all sides. Remember, Sen. Craig plead guilty to a much lesser charge of disorderly conduct, not the actual act of solicitation. Judging by the transcripts and audio of the interrogation after Sen. Craig's arrest, not being a lawyer, I think he should have fought it. And it appears that the case was not all that strong because Sen. Craig was able without a problem to plead to a lesser charge.But, what I think is very important to look at the greater issues of sleazy people who try to "out" alleged homosexuals they do not like because they do not support the "gay agenda", the importance of marriage and is this just another corrupt Republican that can't put his money where his mouth is on a serious issue such as marriage.Mike Rogers is the most vile human form of excrement on God's green earth. After all, it is Mr. Rogers who is making a crusade to "out" alleged homosexuals because after all, they are living a lie, not being true to themselves by not being open about their sexuality and not supporting the left-wing "gay agenda", especially same sex marriage. Who in the hell is this Rogers to be the judge, jury and executioner on how people should live their lives?! Why doesn't some one look into this creeps life. Here is something that maybe shocking to Rogers. Some people are gay and lesbian and everyone knows it. Some of the same people do not think and or support same sex marriage for a variety of reasons. And, Rogers, there are some people who are bisexual, which you do not want to believe because in your sick, one or the other world, you can not recognize that there are people who may be sexual compulsive who do not care where or how or with who they get sex. That maybe Sen. Craig's problem. But because of this man, Rogers, blogging, which gives all of us who blog a bad name, he accused Sen. Craig of being a closet homosexual. And because of that, an excrement of a blogger, the local Boise newspaper, the Idaho Statesman http://idahostatesman.com felt the need to waste time and money and resources digging into Sen. Craig's sex life all the way back to when he was in college in 1967! And, the Statesman only printed the article because of the plea deal Sen. Craig agreed to and was made public in the Capital Hill newspaper, Roll Call on Monday.So, why Sen. Craig? Because he opposes the left-wing homosexual agenda which is not focused on same sex marriage. A no-no in left-wing gayland. And, because if you are potentially in the closet about your sexuality, well they are there to help. By ruining you and also your family and children and in Sen. Craig's case, grandchildren. I am sure as I have read all kinds of comments in the blogoshphere that the pro left-wing gay rights crowd is very happy they have destroyed this man and family. Hmm, talk family values!But, as a serious aside, this issue does raise the meaning of and carrying out of marriage.As a Christian, I absolutely believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. I also believe that is a sacrament ordained by God in Genesis and in Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Marriage is probably the most important act of giving one's self to another in all ways that we can do here on earth in our short time. In the Holy Bible, it says that the two flesh, man and woman, bond as one flesh in marriage. I take my marriage vows between Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and I very seriously. And, because I am human, at times I do fall short and so does Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast. That is the way marriage is.Some people want to redefine that view of marriage. At this time, it is people of the same sex. As an aside, I think it is good for those that are openly gay and lesbian and want to commit their lives to each other. It is better than trolling for sex any where, any time. But, to say that the relationship is exactly the same as my marriage, I just can not wrap around that. I think it is a fair compromise to discuss the concept of civil unions rather than use the M word to describe the relationship of same sex couples. Maybe as science tries to explain the whole of our bodies and brain, it will become more clear. Also, it is only within the last 20 years or so that many Americans are changing their general views of gay and lesbian people in general. By pursing something called same sex marriage, many activist groups are creating some thing to set back the rightful gains of people who are gay and lesbian. Time, and time again, voters in many states have said no to same sex marriage. In many of those same states, talk of civil unions is getting people less worried and thus real discussion can take place. The activists are pushing the envelope way too fast.In the issue of just another sleazy Republican, if there is truth to what Sen. Craig has done in his life regarding his sexual exploits, then yes he is a "nasty boy" as Sen. Craig referred to former President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. And, he did the right thing. Republicans, once they had control of congress ended up not being any better than the Democrats that controlled the House of Representatives for 40 years. We had Mark Foley, who BTW was never denying or affirming that he was gay, it was just there. And all tied to the Abramoff scandals. We Republicans had some bad apples and no one seemed to police them as they should. I would at this point refer you to my post of Friday, August 31 about, "Who Are These People We Elect To Public Office." I think that Republicans and Democrats do not have a whole lot to be proud of.Both parties have sleeze and need to clean it up. Both parties need to set standards and yes high ones so that the public trust is not trashed by people who are there for their own personal gain and or to be perverts with power or all the negative things that go with being an elected public official. Because the Republican party has controlled the congress until the 2006 elections, there is still fallout from that. But, already there is a scandal brewing with Sen. Hilary Clinton and her fundraising. Here we go again!But, all in all I really hope that Sen. Larry Craig can get the help that he needs and that he can repair the damage done to his wife and children and grandchildren. We always have to remember in these very serious debates we are not just talking in generalities but about people and when people are involved instead of a concept, we need to be very careful. And when we are talking concepts and understanding, do so not just to score points and make the other guy look bad. We all have our convictions and sometimes we fall short of what we really do believe. That is what I can take away from this, not good day in Idaho and the United States.

Blog Monitor

Networked Blogs

Ibegin

California Politics

Facebook

About Me

I am interested in all current events from the conservative perspective. Unlike some that you will read, I prefer to enlighten, not enrage. I hope to educate as well as to make you think. I think that those of us that are conservative in our politics as well as in our everyday lives are the real rebels and trying to effect positive change. And now I am part of the Loyal Opposition to the Age o' Obama. And, once again it will be us-the everyday Americans-that will wake up the nation to the excesses that will be the Obama administration.